I'm interested in how we as Orthodox should present our faith to people who have no faith. Many presentations of Orthodoxy are to people who already share some beliefs in common, i.e. Protestants and Roman Catholics. Besides I.M. Andreyev's Orthodox Apologetic Theology, I don't know of many modern works written for people without any kind of Christian background. What do you think an Orthodox Apologetic should look like?
Adrian,
If you type the word evangelism into the search tab, you may find your answer. There are many great threads on this.
Traditionally, Origen is the greatest Christian apologist. Everything he writes concerns the urgency of conversion. But, of course, there is a problem with some of his speculative writings, so his apologetics tend to be ignored.
Also, traditionally, monasticism/asceticism, has been the strongest, most powerful form of Orthodox apologetics. Which is why we do not have a tradition of apologetical treatises as such. If one looks at Patristic sermons, however, there is always an apologetical aspect to them, but it is not separated out from everything else. Everything is about the urgency of repentance and conversion, and our inextricable ties to the martyrs and to the prophets who have come before us, and that our life is, typologically, a living out of everything that has come before, that all of creation and all of salvation depends on each one of us making the right choice, right now, yet we are never alone in that decision.
That is the proof or evidence of the truth of Orthodoxy, in our lives.
I am often uncomfortable with the idea of an Orthodox apologetics because it usually then rests on claiming the historicity of our doctrine, and the continuity of our Church with the apostles. I know a very prominent convert who says he became Orthodox because of the fact that the Church has in its possession the relics of some of the apostles. I guess whatever rings your bell but this seems to me to be a weak argument for a non-Orthodox.
At the same time, we must respect the power of argument. St. Paul goes to Athens and preaches to the Athenians about their "unknown god." Here he is acknowledging the power of argument when you know your audience. He did not go to Athens and accuse the Athenians of being pagans who were eternally damned!!!!! St. Innocent did not preach to the natives in Alaska that because of their primitivism, they were damned to Hell!!!
So I suspect one should not go to a Protestant or a Roman and begin by saying you are damned to Hell because you are in a heretical, apostate Church.
I think there must be a kind of loneliness to being a Protestant.
For a Roman, there is a tradition of triumphalism. And Orthodoxy's appeal is that we do not triumph, we suffer. Suffering Christianity is triumphant. How are we supposed to suffer. The Protestant (conservative) who suffers becomes anxious because he is not supposed to suffer. He is saved. The Roman who suffers does so because the Church is not yet powerful enough.
The most important argument, and the most difficult for me to articulate, is aesthetic. God saves, not by applying his mercy to us but by applying His Beauty to us. Mercy is what makes salvation possible. But it is not salvation. Salvation is deification, which means that our minds and our bodies are being transformed so that we can see God's Beauty in things that we used to think were ugly. We recoil when we see things that disturb us, by reminding us of our weakness, our shallowness, our mortality.
I once asked a Phd in theology, when you see a man living on the street, smelling of urine and feces, dressed in rags, what do you see. He said, I see a man who is not living the way he ought to be living. And I said that we should see Christ. That is an aesthetic distinction.
Yeah because St. Paul just met the 'unknown God' himself and even he was not aware of Him until He revealed Himself to him.Originally Posted by Owen Jones
How could he, when Christ had just been on earth? No nation was aware of that. We can not compare that moment of history with others because it is a great faux pas. God had not revealed Himself to the Gentiles. Apostles had to bring the Good News to the rest of the world. If there are "Gentiles" today is because they choose not to see Christ.
Here he is acknowledging the power of argument when you know your audience. He did not go to Athens and accuse the Athenians of being pagans who were eternally damned!!!!!
The natives of Alaska were NOT primitive. What does primitive mean anyway? Primitive is a condescending term (mainly) Europeans came up with when they could not explain the rich cultures of other places they explored. And do not crucify me for saying that, because I am an European.St. Innocent did not preach to the natives in Alaska that because of their primitivism, they were damned to Hell!!!
First, PhD in what theology (because there is theology and Theology)? Second, ummm although you gave the right response, isn't the primitivism of Alaskans you mentioned above in the same line of thought with the Phd guy's?I once asked a Phd in theology, when you see a man living on the street, smelling of urine and feces, dressed in rags, what do you see. He said, I see a man who is not living the way he ought to be living. And I said that we should see Christ. That is an aesthetic distinction.
Bravo!The natives of Alaska were NOT primitive. What does primitive mean anyway? Primitive is a condescending term (mainly) Europeans came up with when they could not explain the rich cultures of other places they explored.
There was a fascinating programme here last year in which some 'primitive' - doesn't it mean 'first'? - people from, I think, Papua New Guinea were brought to London. The first thing they asked to see was 'your spirit house'. They took them to St Paul's Cathedral. They then noticed an office block taller than St Paul's, and asked what it was. 'A money house', they were told. They frowned and said, 'it is not good that your money house is higher than your spirit house'.
The implicit context of my remarks seem to have been considerably misconstrued by focusing on side issues. The context really is that most apologetics that I run across tend to accentuate the distinctions between the damned and the saved, even and sometimes especially Orthodox apologetics. And so the argument seems to run along the following lines: you are going to hell, but if you really want to be saved, you must become [fill in your church here], because [fill in your church here] is the only true Church. QED.
It's an argument that works for some, but I have always found it wanting.
I really do not want to get into an argument over semantics. But I see nothing wrong with the term primitive. If my religion is based on satisfying elemental spirits, the evil eye, curses and hexes, through animal sacrifices or certain incantations, I think the term primitive fits. If it seems like too much of a condescending term, then don't use it. But let's try to avoid condescension toward those who are attempting to use it empirically. It appears, in any case, that my points were received in the opposite direction in which they were intended....
The 'side issues' (which is really the core) are a recurring theme here in several posts, different posters, different threads (my favorite is how Apostles addressed pagan Greeks) - and maybe the time comes that we need to mention that we can't compare pagan Greece, with whichever country of our century. We have two millenia of Christianity by now. They had zero. If we compare it would be only for our disgrace since without Christian tradition they produced saints and martyrs instantly - and us (?).
However this did not mean that you did not make some valid points, which are very true.
How about seeing Christ on their face like you already said about the beggar.But I see nothing wrong with the term primitive. If my religion is based on satisfying elemental spirits, the evil eye, curses and hexes, through animal sacrifices or certain incantations, I think the term primitive fits.
As I said, I was using the term primitive, descriptively, not as a perjorative. But it apparently is a loaded term for some.
The term "pagan Greece" seems to have incited some something beyond my ken as well, which was not my intention. I was not, as some would say, applying a "value judgment" to the term, one way or the other.
Interesting post Owen,
Telling someone they are heretical or dammed is no way to act, you are right, it won't save anyone and it won't get them to listen. People are more likely to listen when they see good acts or courage.
I read recently that the Russian Orthodox people who had to flee from Russia, and go out into the world, were to be a shining light for the Orthodox Church, by the good works of the Russian Orthodox Christians, other people were to have been converted to Orthodoxy, those who had not heard of the Church before.
I know that there are a lot of good works in America and a lot of converts. I am not sure about here. I only heard of the Orthodox Church when I stumbled across a Russian at work, and even then I did not know about the Orthodox Church until we were practicaly engaged and found out that he was supposed to marry another Russian, any Russian just not an Australian, then one day I insisted on going with him to Church because I didn't want to be alone, that was when I found the Church.
I know very few converts here and I don't know of good works that are being done in the name of Orthodoxy, we, (three other convert women and myself, all mothers) tried to convert people in our area, but we couldn't encourage others to help us. We tried to raise money for our Skete but there few were interested in helping us either. I am told things are changing but I am sad that it has taken so long for people to get inspired and move themselves into action.
When I was ten I felt sorry for some kids at school, they spoke with an accent and they were different, everyone shunned or made fun of them. I tried to be friends with them, but they stank, in the end I couldn't bare it and I hid from them when they came to see me at lunch time. A friend of mine told them to go away that I didn't want to be friends with them anymore. I hurt them more than anyone else, the shame of that stays in my memory.
If I saw a person dressed in rags - that is one thing, I don't feel repelled, but the smell, I find that really difficult. In recent years I tried to tell a women that she needed to go to a Dr or something because she had a problem with odour, I tried to tell her in the nicest possible way because everyone was avoiding her. Seeing Christ when you meet someone in rags who stinks, wow, our Saints would have been kind to them, I have such a long way to go.
same here...
In this case is like with every other temptations. Be patient, pray and do not worry because God will help. Like in every case: some are tempted and some are not. Saints when they had reached theosis, had reached also apatheia which is basically a passionless state.
At the public library downtown, where I usually go, there are many people dressed in rags and who have also a different smell. But they may smell from lack of resources to upkeep their hygiene, whereas I -although using the best smelling fragrances and products of hygiene- may stink because of my sins. Saint Andrew the Fool for Christ for instance never took care of his hygiene but when he went to the agora (marketplace) and saw all the material things there (like jewelery and such) used to close his nose and run away saying: "It stinks, it stinks!"
Back to the poor people at the public library. They come in and use the computers always there. You sometime see researchers of world-wide-fame caliber seating in the library side by side with such people.
We are all responsible for these phenomena in our world, but I digress... I sat several times in the computer area by their side for searching the catalog and all I could do is think about them... I did not mind their smell - I felt such pity and sadness although I do not know their stories. But on the other hand I am tempted in other areas, that is why I say we are tempted in different ways. The sense of smell is one of the areas from where the temptations enter us, since after the Holy Baptism, Fathers say, we are attacked from the outside.
The most important to keep in mind in this case...
Christ: washed the feet of HIS Apostles - and I am sure they were all tired and sweaty from all that walking in the dusty, hot places of those times.
Many Saints Fools for Christ: Did not have means to upkeep their personal hygiene. One of them, St. Andrew the Fool for Christ did something unimaginable for all of us - he relieved himself in public in order to attract more mocking, ridicule, or physical violence from people.
Mother Gabriela and other saints: tended to people who were very ill (to maintain a personal hygiene) and with sores, or diseases that also released strong odors.
This post edited after posting by Nina, 29-01-2008 at 03:26 AM
P.S And about beggars and seeing Christ. I highly recommend reading the vision of St. Niphon Bishop of Cyprus, and what he saw when someone approaches a beggar. If you can not find the material, please ask, and I can post it here from my book.
I'm glad to see that Irene has engaged with the real content of Owen's post, which has a tremendous amount of food for thought.
INXC, Dcn Matthew
I know this thread is now very old but I happened to come across it and thought that this statement (and a similar one that was made later in this thread) needed to be addressed. I apologize for dragging up a past discussion like this.
The problem I have here is that this is untrue. It may be true of America, but, as some body who has spent several years of his life in Muslim countries (Iraq and Kuwait specifically), I can assure you that it is not true in many other places around the world.
I couldn't find the study to post a link to here, unfortunately, but I read just recently that an evangelical group did a survey in Muslim countries and found that as many as 88%!!!!!! of Muslims have never met a Christian. And based on my own experiences I don't think that this number is inflated.
In Maysan Province, Iraq, where I am currently, there are all of three!!! Christians: a Chaldean Catholic priest, his wife and his daughter. And they were last accounted for by the British in 2005. We don't know where they are now, but they probably aren't in Maysan anymore. And those are out of a population of several hundred thousand! The majority of these people have never met a Christian in their entire life.
Even in Baghdad, where I spent 2005 and 2006, which is a fairly modern, cosmopolitan city, which has an Orthodox as well as a Catholic presence (in fact, it is the seat of the Patriarchate of the Assyrian [Nestorian] Church), where the majority of Muslims I worked with had Christian friends and neighbors, they knew abysmally little about the Christian Faith.
I remember one of my interpreters' shock (and horror) one day when he asked me who Christians thought that Jesus was and I told him "the Son of God." And this is a man who had grown up in the Karadah district of Baghdad, which is about 50% Christian!
Much of the world is indeed unevangelized and even ignorant of Christianity. These people are not "choosing" to not know Christ. They have not yet been introduced to him. As somebody said in another post, there has been "two thousand years" of Christianity since then so these people should know about Christ, but they don't! And this is not their choosing. This is a failure on the part of Christians. And one which, I fear, we may have to answer for.
Frankly, one of the best concise apologetic discourses is St Athanasius "On the Incarnation". My copy is the one with the introduction by C.S. Lewis which actually deepens the impact of the work (frankly C.S. Lewis really sets up the work perfectly).
Apologetics are more art than science and must be tailored to the matter at hand. As a convert who was obsessed with apologetics when he was protestant, frankly I'd not bother to be guided by most of the sort of material common in Western Christian philosophy (though Geisler and others can quiet certain demons of doubt for first time inquirers).
I know some worry about historicity as a dead end, but some reasonable accommodation is necessary to establish a relationship with someone who (like myself) formerly considered historicity essential.
Ultimately, apologetics are a dangerous game. Rhetoric is easily manipulated and most people aren't persuaded by rational thinking. I've found that people believe largely what either they cannot deny (and wow do they try hard to stretch that) or what they want to believe.
The experience of the Church in the Church seems the best path. But then I'm a new convert. Others have said that in this thread. So I'm largely deferring to the wisdom of the previous posts. Witnessing, that is by living the faith, is apologia par excellence.
I agree with you in general that the best witness is to live a holy life.
However, I think that sometimes more than simply "living" is called for. I'm not sure if it was on this thread that I read this or elsewhere somebody made the statement, but it definitely struck a chord: if the Apostles would have been content to witness through their daily living alone, Christianity would still be a small Jewish sect in Jerusalem.
I think that making our voice heard is especially important when it comes to attacks on Christianity. For instance, I've been writing lately on my blog about Zeitgeist, The Movie (I'm not saying that I personally am a great apologist, but I'm just addressing some of the historical inaccuracies in the movie).
I think the same is true of witness in the Muslim world. Assuming that it is true that 88% of Muslims have never met a Christian, this obviously means to simply witnessing by living is impossible. If there's no Christian for them to see as an example, the Christian can't be an example! I think that the Coptic Priest Father Zakaria Botros has an excellent ministry that could serve as an example of how witness to Muslims is done: http://www.fatherzakaria.net/
His voice is definitely being heard in the Muslim world. Nearly every Iraqi I have met knows who he is and have watched his show at least once. It's one of the most viewed in the Muslim world if for no other reason than the controversy it stirs up.
While living a holy life worthy of imitation is wonderful witness, it is not the totality of necessary witness.
In relation to apologetics, Ultimately, either the Holy Spirit is in it or He is not.
Whether we are talking about either well honed responses or lifestyle, the above is true. Can I get a witness?
I'll admit that not every mission effort needs the Theotokos to appear as with St Nina. However, at the very start it would be wise to consider why we are taking on a ministry/mission. For our glory? To mitigate our own insecurities? Or because God prepared us for the work in Christ.
I personally find much of the current zeal for evangelical activities in the US to be uncomfortable. They sound and smell like where I came from in my past. They have an air of desperation, not peace. They are emotional and carry language like "we *must* defend the Church." I am suspicious of such rhetoric.
At the very least, get the blessing of one's spiritual father and remain in regular contact with him, going to confession often. Even better don't even consider such activities unless you are asked to do them, this would avoid any chance they came from your own sinful desires that you can do them in obedience.
Christ emptied himself, let us do likewise. St John the Forerunnner said he must decrease that Christ should increase, let us do likewise.
Rick is correct. I would go a step further and add the wisdom of Gamaliel.
In regards to Orthodox apologetics...
As it happens, one of the foremost Christian apologists in the world is Orthodox. I am speaking of Richard Swinburne, formerly Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford. He has numerous books defending various aspects of the Christian faith, including the tetrology (1) The Coherence of Theism, (2) The Existence of God, (3) Faith and Reason, as well as various volumes devoted to specific topics within Christian theology, such as The Evolution of the Soul, The Christian God, Providence and the Problem of Evil, and so on.
Granted, he is a convert to the Orthodox Church, and the majority of his books were written before his conversion. And moreover, he is an analytical philosopher, so some Orthodox are likely to reject his work as Western rationalism. But I think its great stuff, especially if you liked Andreyev's book.
I would like to reccomend a book that is online called The Path of Reason in Search of the Truth by A.I. Osipov
Posting Permissions
Reply with Quotation
Bookmarks